Karnataka High Court
K. Narasappa vs The Tahasildar, Honnali Taluk, Honnali ... on 16 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)KARLJ96, 1998 A I H C 4531, (1999) 1 KANT LJ 96
Author: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
Bench: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
JUDGMENT Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.
1. The appeal is filed assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The brief facts of the case are, that the petitioner-appellant has filed an application for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of 1 acre of land which was in his possession. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application on the ground that petitioner's family was granted land already. Against that, appeal was filed. Appellate Authority affirmed the same. The orders are challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Against that present appeal is filed.
2. Learned Counsel for appellant contended that appellant is in possession of 1 acre of land as unauthorised occupant and under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act his application has to be considered. It is contended that the land was granted to his family long back, therefore the same cannot be a bar for granting this land.
3. To implement the scheme envisaged under Directive Principles of State Policy, the State has brought agrarian legislations beginning from abolition of Jahagirs and estates to Land Ceiling Act and a number of other legislations with an intent that there must be a distribution of the lands to the poor sections of the society. In pursuance of the said enactments, the land was taken over by the State and distributed to the poor. Similarly, the Mysore Land Grant Rules and provisions in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act are enacted with the purpose of granting land to the landless poor. The aim of the enactments or rules is that the 'have nots' may be provided some means to survive though not in equal status with 'haves'.
4. In the present case, the request is made to regularise unauthorised occupation. The family is already granted land, that is not disputed. If the land is granted to the persons who are already granted or the land which is in their unauthorised occupation is regularised the other persons who have no land will be deprived of the grant of land; and that itself will defeat the purpose of the constitutional scheme envisaged under Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy. Therefore, the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will restrain from granting reliefs which are against the constitutional scheme and the legislative spirit of the enactments. Therefore, the purport of the Land Grant Rules and provisions for regularisation of unauthorised occupation is meant only to the landless poor persons but not to the persons who are already holding the land. If the unauthorised occupation to be regularised irrespective of the economic status of the persons seeking it, tomorrow every landlord will occupy the Government land and claim for regularisation of unauthorised occupation and then purpose envisaged under the legislation will utterly fail and it is also against the cannons of social justice.
5. Therefore, we hold that a person who has already been granted land or his unauthorised occupation is regularised will not be entitled for further grant or regularisation. Hence, the appellant is not entitled for regularisation of unauthorised occupation. We see no grounds in the contention raised by learned Counsel for appellant. Therefore, writ appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.